Mike McCarthy vs Next Gen Stats analytics

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
2,227
Seems like a lot MM haters out there...but seems he got a lot right on Sunday....

Mike McCarthy’s tale of two halves


McCarthy and the NGS Decision Guide were in full agreement on all four of the Cowboys' fourth-down situations against the Patriots in the first half, three of which were strong go-for-it recommendations, according to our model. The second half, however, was a different story.


FIRST QUARTER: With 12:04 remaining, the Cowboys (tied 0-0) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 34-yard line. Ezekiel Elliott was stuffed for no gain, and the Patriots took over.


We care more about the process than outcome when it comes to evaluating fourth-down decisions. In this case, McCarthy was right to go for it, despite the offense not converting on the play. The NGS Decision Guide recommended Dallas go for it instead of punt by a difference of 2.6 percentage points in win probability value. This was driven heavily by the Cowboys' chances of converting if they went for it (73.9 percent), which increases even more if they called a run play (77.2 percent).


FIRST QUARTER: With 2:30 remaining, the Cowboys (trailing 14-7) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 47-yard line and successfully converted on an Elliott run that bounced outside the tackles.


Another fourth-and-short, another Elliott run call. With offensive lineman Connor McGovern lined up as a fullback, Elliott took the handoff and cut sharply to the left edge to pick up 3 yards and earn a new set of downs. We had that play as a 5.7 percent decision in favor of going for it.


SECOND QUARTER: With 1:32 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 14-10) facing a fourth-and-goal from the Patriots' 1-yard line, Dak Prescott fumbles prior to crossing the goal line on a QB sneak attempt.


After failing to score on three previous tries from the 1-yard line, McCarthy once again opted to go for it. Our model strongly supported this decision, with a 10.4 percentage-point difference in win probability value. Although the decision meshed with the analytics, the failed attempt did result in a loss of 24 percentage points in expected win probability value.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 2:47 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 21-20) facing a fourth-and-2 from the Patriots' 33-yard line, Dallas’ Greg Zuerlein misses a 51-yard field-goal attempt.


McCarthy's fourth-down aggressiveness hit an abrupt wall as the game reached its final moments. Per the NGS Decision Guide, going for it here would've yielded 4.6 percentage points in win probability value. Part of the model’s recommendation accounted for the conversion probabilities of going for it (59%) versus kicking a field goal (55%). Furthermore, Dallas’ win probability would have increased to 70 percent with a successful conversion. A conversion also would have allowed Dallas to burn more clock to set up a potential game-winning field goal with significantly less time remaining.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 24 seconds remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 29-26) facing a fourth-and-1 from the Patriots' 31-yard line, Zuerlein makes a 49-yard field goal.


Let's ignore the fact that McCarthy oddly called one of his two remaining timeouts to kick a field goal with 24 seconds left instead of letting the clock wind down to sub-5 seconds first. Given the situation, and the timeout, the optimal call was to go for it by 16 percentage points of win probability value.


The NGS Decision Guide estimates the Cowboys had a 74 percent probability of converting the fourth-and-1, compared to a 62 percent probability of making the 49-yard field-goal try. Ultimately, Zuerlein effectively sent the game into overtime, though it was still a risky decision, given that the guide pegged a make as giving the Cowboys -- with one timeout left -- a 58 percent chance (roughly the chances of winning in overtime) to win. If the Cowboys had converted on the fourth-and-1, however, they would have been able to either take their chances at the end zone or try a closer, more high-percentage field goal.
 

Jake

Beyond tired of Jerry
Messages
36,067
Reaction score
84,350
With "right" being defined solely by next gen stats?

Analytics are a great tool, but these are human beings playing in different environments every week. Stats alone aren't the end-all-be-all when it comes to decisions.
 

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
2,227
With "right" being defined solely by next gen stats?

Analytics are a great tool, but these are human beings playing in different environments every week. Stats alone aren't the end-all-be-all when it comes to decisions.


I agree,,,,,stats can be tailor made to suit anyones agenda...thats why the call them stats not facts... But it does show he is not making these decisions in a vacuum.. Actually using analytics and hopefully the OC/DQ input as well.
 

TheCoolFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
9,446
The decisions to go for it in the 1st half were ALL correct! They may not pick up the 1st down but it was still the right thing to do. However, the 51-yard FG was just confusing and went against the aggressive nature that we thought he had. It made no sense and now we're left to be even more confused than ever :huh:
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
37,935
Reaction score
34,955
The decisions to go for it in the 1st half were ALL correct! They may not pick up the 1st down but it was still the right thing to do. However, the 51-yard FG was just confusing and went against the aggressive nature that we thought he had. It made no sense and now we're left to be even more confused than ever :huh:

I would not have gone for fourth down inside our 40 no matter what analytics told me.
 

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
2,227
I would not have gone for fourth down inside our 40 no matter what analytics told me.

IMO analytics are only one part of the equation.....think Kellen Moore also had input....but man any 4th down inside your own 40 is a gutsy call.... Risk vs Rewards.....and he lost that battle.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
37,935
Reaction score
34,955
IMO analytics are only one part of the equation.....think Kellen Moore also had input....but man any 4th down inside your own 40 is a gutsy call.... Risk vs Rewards.....and he lost that battle.

Yep. Then the next time he faced a fourth in his own territory he went for it and got it.

I'd feel better about those plays if we had a shut-down defense, but right now, we're opportunistic on that side of the ball, but give up a lot of yards and points.
 

kumizi

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,236
Reaction score
5,649
So the next gen stats show what everyone in the national media sees. McCarthy is a bad decision maker at the end of halves and end of games. At most other times, he does the right thing going for it on 4th and short.
 

Mr_437

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,003
Reaction score
18,894
Seems like a lot MM haters out there...but seems he got a lot right on Sunday....

Mike McCarthy’s tale of two halves


McCarthy and the NGS Decision Guide were in full agreement on all four of the Cowboys' fourth-down situations against the Patriots in the first half, three of which were strong go-for-it recommendations, according to our model. The second half, however, was a different story.


FIRST QUARTER: With 12:04 remaining, the Cowboys (tied 0-0) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 34-yard line. Ezekiel Elliott was stuffed for no gain, and the Patriots took over.


We care more about the process than outcome when it comes to evaluating fourth-down decisions. In this case, McCarthy was right to go for it, despite the offense not converting on the play. The NGS Decision Guide recommended Dallas go for it instead of punt by a difference of 2.6 percentage points in win probability value. This was driven heavily by the Cowboys' chances of converting if they went for it (73.9 percent), which increases even more if they called a run play (77.2 percent).


FIRST QUARTER: With 2:30 remaining, the Cowboys (trailing 14-7) faced a fourth-and-1 from their own 47-yard line and successfully converted on an Elliott run that bounced outside the tackles.


Another fourth-and-short, another Elliott run call. With offensive lineman Connor McGovern lined up as a fullback, Elliott took the handoff and cut sharply to the left edge to pick up 3 yards and earn a new set of downs. We had that play as a 5.7 percent decision in favor of going for it.


SECOND QUARTER: With 1:32 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 14-10) facing a fourth-and-goal from the Patriots' 1-yard line, Dak Prescott fumbles prior to crossing the goal line on a QB sneak attempt.


After failing to score on three previous tries from the 1-yard line, McCarthy once again opted to go for it. Our model strongly supported this decision, with a 10.4 percentage-point difference in win probability value. Although the decision meshed with the analytics, the failed attempt did result in a loss of 24 percentage points in expected win probability value.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 2:47 remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 21-20) facing a fourth-and-2 from the Patriots' 33-yard line, Dallas’ Greg Zuerlein misses a 51-yard field-goal attempt.


McCarthy's fourth-down aggressiveness hit an abrupt wall as the game reached its final moments. Per the NGS Decision Guide, going for it here would've yielded 4.6 percentage points in win probability value. Part of the model’s recommendation accounted for the conversion probabilities of going for it (59%) versus kicking a field goal (55%). Furthermore, Dallas’ win probability would have increased to 70 percent with a successful conversion. A conversion also would have allowed Dallas to burn more clock to set up a potential game-winning field goal with significantly less time remaining.


FOURTH QUARTER: With 24 seconds remaining and the Cowboys (trailing 29-26) facing a fourth-and-1 from the Patriots' 31-yard line, Zuerlein makes a 49-yard field goal.


Let's ignore the fact that McCarthy oddly called one of his two remaining timeouts to kick a field goal with 24 seconds left instead of letting the clock wind down to sub-5 seconds first. Given the situation, and the timeout, the optimal call was to go for it by 16 percentage points of win probability value.


The NGS Decision Guide estimates the Cowboys had a 74 percent probability of converting the fourth-and-1, compared to a 62 percent probability of making the 49-yard field-goal try. Ultimately, Zuerlein effectively sent the game into overtime, though it was still a risky decision, given that the guide pegged a make as giving the Cowboys -- with one timeout left -- a 58 percent chance (roughly the chances of winning in overtime) to win. If the Cowboys had converted on the fourth-and-1, however, they would have been able to either take their chances at the end zone or try a closer, more high-percentage field goal.
Are there any analytics on when to challenge and when to take timeouts?
 

Praxit

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,689
Reaction score
12,685
.........lets see who gets suckered in or suggested otherwise. ;).
 

Chocolate Lab

Run-loving Dino
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
9,797
I personally believe the analytics craze is overdone, but I thought this was what so many wanted. If you're going to complain that we're outdated and unscientific in our decision making, you can't then complain when we use the analytics and the outcome is a negative one. You can't have it both ways
 

cowboyec

Well-Known Member
Messages
33,579
Reaction score
40,418
his team WON.
whatever coaching decisions were made obviously worked.
he took this team...riding a 4 game win streak...into new england against belichick and won.
contrary to some of you legendary head coaches...thats not easy to do.
garrett couldn't.
theres alot of things mccarthy's ☆'boys are doing that garrett's couldn't.
i'm glad we got a football guy.
 

Maxmadden

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,143
Reaction score
4,369
I personally believe the analytics craze is overdone, but I thought this was what so many wanted. If you're going to complain that we're outdated and unscientific in our decision making, you can't then complain when we use the analytics and the outcome is a negative one. You can't have it both ways
There is also nothing in analytics that tells you if a particular unit is tired and if injuries have occurred to create advantages and disadvantages and sometimes it is just a gut feeling.

Let the coaches coach and accept the outcome. A win is a win. Hindsight is left for us fans to complain about.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,055
Reaction score
25,976
With "right" being defined solely by next gen stats?

Analytics are a great tool, but these are human beings playing in different environments every week. Stats alone aren't the end-all-be-all when it comes to decisions.
They don’t take in account other factors like the fact they had stopped on short yardage plays multiple times
 

bigdnlaca

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,704
Reaction score
1,259
The decisions to go for it in the 1st half were ALL correct! They may not pick up the 1st down but it was still the right thing to do. However, the 51-yard FG was just confusing and went against the aggressive nature that we thought he had. It made no sense and now we're left to be even more confused than ever :huh:
I think it was more about mm not trusting the refs at that point, NE strong upfront and them seeing all of their short yardage plays at that time.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,474
Reaction score
15,503
Common sense, and situational awareness, is what a HC should rely on.
Each situation is different, and you as HC have to know when to go and when not to, by what has happened
in that particular game.

What mike is doing is throwing field position battle out the window with going for it in your end of field, or at midfield. That hurts or burdens your defense and gives the other team short fields.

It also is not factoring in how dallas offense is moving the ball, which is so good, just play the field position battle, and help your defense.
 

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
2,227
Common sense, and situational awareness, is what a HC should rely on.
Each situation is different, and you as HC have to know when to go and when not to, by what has happened
in that particular game.

What mike is doing is throwing field position battle out the window with going for it in your end of field, or at midfield. That hurts or burdens your defense and gives the other team short fields.

It also is not factoring in how dallas offense is moving the ball, which is so good, just play the field position battle, and help your defense.

I agree with what you are saying....still think Analytics should be part of the game...but experienced coaches have a feel for how the game is being played.....
 
Top